Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Have give the committee a chance to chat quickly on a couple of bills once we were talking about this morning, also the baby food bill. And then if we've got a few minutes, we're going to have Richard give us some background on a little piece of language that we might add to the miscellaneous bill. So that's that's what we're gonna try and pack into the next half hour. We can get. Alright. Thank you, Jed. So why don't we well, because it's still somewhat fresh in our memories, go back to the rodenticide draft that we looked at earlier with Bradley. And we had a chance to ask some questions. Did you see anything there that you raised a red flag other than what you've already heard? No.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: John? No. I should be should have got enough.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So $7.07 58 through a dental side, Phil. Any comments? Hearing none? No. I'd be happy to take a motion to

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'm not I'm not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Richard, you you had I know you raised some concerns that not everyone is Not all farmers are licensed applicators, so they don't all have the advantage that you have. They would have to either become a licensed applicator themselves, which doesn't sound like it's an insurmountable burden, but would take some time and some training and some expense.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Is there a way for us to find that out? Is that something the agency of agriculture might know? How many because when I think about people that I've talked to who have apple orchards, all of them are licensed applicators. So are there gonna be other

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And it's not just farmers, you know, sugar sugar makers. They're they're producing food. They have to keep rodents under control. Everybody everybody in the food business, now a lot of them, a lot of people use, you know, certified, you know, licensed applicators, the big ones. I'm sure RedHen does. I I I shouldn't say I'm sure, I don't know what they do. You know, but Cabot does and Bennington Jerry's and whatnot. You know, my whole thing is what problem are we trying to solve with this? You know, our our our wildlife populations are strong. Our our raptors population is strong. You know, we just started the use of bait boxes two years ago on second generation. And, you know, there's been no studies to to catch up to where we've been. And, you know, in Fish and Wildlife and and the agency of agriculture are working together now to to make new rules, and I don't know why we wanna be so fast to circumvent something that they're working on to to make better. So that might that's my whole thing. And and again, you're you're you know, I I'm not all about getting warm and fuzzy with with rats and mice. You know, I just I think that, you know, I've had it I had an issue at my home one year out of the thirty years I've lived there. And and I don't have a whole lot of evidence of a problem this year, but I had one issue. But I can't speak for other people in urban areas or, you know, other people in other places. So I just don't know what problem we're we're trying to solve and and taking away useful tools for people that do have a problem.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I should say we can go around the room, but we will go ahead. Go ahead, Doctor. Bartholomew. Well, think

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: the problem we're trying to solve is wildlife populations might be strong, they are affected. And we saw some pretty strong testimony and there's some pretty horrible deaths that looked like some of the owls. And we have testimony about poisoning of humans, mostly children. So that's the problem I think we're trying to solve. And I think what we're trying to do, believe is to create better education, make sure that the stuff isn't applied indiscriminately. That's one issue you run into anytime you're dealing with a type of pesticide is a little bit is good, more has gotta be better. That's not always the case. And I'm no expert in what it takes. I mean, don't really even understand what it takes to become an applicator, but what I've heard is that the fee is pretty small, like somewhere around $25 and that you have to have some kind of training. So if you're a farmer and you don't have what you need and you've got a problem, it shouldn't be that onerous. And then you, as that farmer, have had some training on the proper application and limiting the use to doing it correctly rather than just, you know, go out and buy it. And I think that could be a good thing. If you really have a problem,

[Rep. Heather Surprenant]: I got a small farm. We don't use an ox buck. We got a 100 or so chickens when they start to get we got cats too, but we start to get built up. Where you should. Can take our own bait stations that can't be entered by the cats or the other animals on the farm. I think we're putting in jeopardy a lot of our small businesses in our food industries by not having an alternative that actually works. So I'm not favor of banning it 100%, and I don't have a license either to use it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's my thoughts. Representative Bussel?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah. I mean, as I understand it, the language right now is not banning it 100. It's banning it unless you have a certified applicator who's gonna put it in. There still is an impact on wildlife. And in terms of pain and suffering on animals that are living in our woods, trying to prevent them eating poison rodents and then bleeding out from a horrible death, that feels like something that is sort of within our purview to do. Forestry is one of our categories on this committee and animals that live in the forest are part of what we're supposed to be thinking about and trying to find a balance between what are the needs of the humans we represent and what are the needs of the animals that live in the forest is part of what we have to do. And I feel like the bill in the form we have it right now is a pretty good compromise. It's not ruling them out 100%, but it is restricting them. So there will be less exposure for the animals who are impacted negatively. So I would support it in the current form.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Others?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Representing. Yeah. You know, we heard some testimony this morning about an automobile, the wiring. I had a can you still take a block of on the cat or something and putting it in the cab of your tractor or your getter in the hopes of saving your wiring or your computer lines, if this bill passes or is are are those first or second generation? Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So so that's I don't know what what I'm not sure that brand, where it fall, what category, but if it's first generation or second generation or non anticoagulant. No ways hardware or anyone would be able to sell those. It not be so small. You would have to get a licensed person. You could become licensed.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Let's say all 200,000 vehicle owners in the state would need a license. They're not gonna put some of in their trunk.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Or they would need to hire somebody with a Yeah. Is there any way, we were just talking,

[Unknown Member]: is there any way we can nudge the industry towards building a better mouse? I mean, the problem exists here because the rodents eat the poison and then run outside and they're available to wildlife. So if there was a way to contain them in better bait traps, this wouldn't be an issue. And I don't know what we could do here to push the industry towards a bait trap that contains the poison

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I I suppose a ban would maybe encourage that industry to look at what it could do, what it could do instead of build a better mouth job.

[Unknown Member]: Chair, can

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: you hear me?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We can. Yes. Go ahead, Greg.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I just wanna just a clarifying question. Is there still an exact is there an exemption that in case the secretary decides there's an emergency situation?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. Do we have

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: that in this bill still?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Alright.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: That's it. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. The the and I don't I'm not looking at it in front of me, but the there would be a ban on using them in in or near

[Unknown Member]: Environmentally sensitive.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Environmental environmentally sensitive areas. But the secretary could,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: can you have an exemption that lasts for years? Or how how what what are the what's the typical duration of a emergency use?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. Yep. I don't think that the bill as currently drafted specifies the duration. And in the absence of anything explicit, I think it would be entirely up to the secretary.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Would it be wise? I think this has been floated, and I feel like perhaps California has this in their statute that there's a sunset on on their language. Is that something we wanna entertain in terms of if, you know, it might not if if it if things get out of control, we don't necessarily want this to be an act of legislation that has to take place to undo something. I mean, obviously, that emergency situation, the emergency declaration by the secretary could continue. I don't know if there's if we wanna do, like, a three year time period like we've have for a lot of other statute where we wanna wait and see, but we don't want it to necessarily require an act of legislation to go back to what we had. Just just a thought.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Thank you. Representative Bartholomew? Just looking at that section of

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: the bill, and it's a really just a ban within 500 feet of any environmentally sensitive area. And then there are the less is where the exception could be made, and there's no mention of time. So the secretary could, I I guess, this is some fish and wildlife that would make that. Is that right?

[Rep. Heather Surprenant]: Is that right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Think it's an egg.

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Fish and wildlife is mentioned here, but what page? There isn't. This is on page six.

[Unknown Member]: The exemption permit comes from ag. Right?

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So it's it's only relate the the regular the the and is only within 500 feet. That's the word I'm looking for. But an environment sensitive area. It's not just everywhere. So that's the only place there's an actual ban, and there are there's an exception there that's related to the agency.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The the agency. And there

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: is no time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And there's no time limit. Okay.

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So I I think that's that's covered in here already. And, again, it's only within an the as we define an environmentally sensitive area within 500 feet.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Representative.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Can I just clarify something? So I think, John, that the as I understand it, the prohibition within 500 feet is one part of it. And then the other restriction is it's going to transition from there are now circumstances where people can use all different levels of rodenticides and we're making it so that if you're using a rodenticide, it has to be with a certified applicator. So that is a transition where homeowners, business owners, whatever, that may be a change. And the hope is that will be maybe a pair back of what we've had before in terms of usage. So I think it's still both those categories are gonna be restricted. Am I correct about that?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, it's

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: not just the 500 feet, it's also the change in access.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's true. Yeah. Representative Burtt may have had a hand up. Okay. We'll we'll move to representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: If you can trust I looked up what California has done and what rodenticides can you use now and the toxic bait options now available for residents use are the non ARs. The bromethylene, cloves, holy, chalciferol, and zinc phosphate that they can't use any of the anticoagulants first or second generation without license. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. You know, I raised concerns about the public health, thus asking if we can get the Department of Health in here if we can. And I understand that if you're a food hub or restaurant or grocer, you will likely have a commercial firm that's managing your facility, but where do individual people, whether they live alone or they have a family, are we part of the public? I'm assuming we are, we're diminutive little groupings of them.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So as individual individual? Yeah, so

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: we are a one of the most rural states in the country. We do have the oldest housing stock, and we are in a very old climate. All things working against us protecting our homes, kitchens, and families. So, you know, I have an ICESat trap couple of dozen a year, I replace them because the spring spread, you know, they become dysfunctional like probably every other household. But as far as putting them in a tractor, a skidder, a harpser, a forwarder, vibration and the ankles are on, snap traps don't work, you know. All of them have complex wiring just like all of our vehicles, and, you know, maybe they're these zinc blocks or whatever California allows. I just think that, you know, the invisible men and women of our state, people need something other than a snap track if they aren't gonna hire a commercial applicator or operator to come to all of our homes. And and they are you only had one problem in twenty years, every year within an eighteen fifty house. And, you know, we're it would get overrun. So I'm concerned that we don't leave the average citizen with without at least something in the toolbox other than the snap traps. It's not for the vehicles where they do go to the work or whatever, but I have a concern about that and I'd appreciate you giving me a little comfort. Know I have the answers, but one thing I know from that thirty minutes of testimony this morning, relying on birth control, if that isn't working yet, it's why. It's not facility building. It's not facility building. Yeah. Thank you,

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Chuck. Right. Yeah. Well, we certainly seem to have got some conflicting testimony on that, because another group said it does work. So I don't know what to believe. And what I'm finding alarming is that companies can put whatever they want out in the market, whether they work or not, like the sonic things. Why are you allowed to sell something and advertise it that it will control mice if it doesn't? That's troubling to me, but I wanted to touch on the wiring. Does anybody know I keep hearing about the soy based wiring and that that attracts mice because it's edible and they're eating the insulation. But are car manufacturers still using that? And if you have just regular plastic insulation, do the mice get after that? I don't know the answer to that. And certainly the soy base was a problem. And even with that, I'm guessing most Vermonters don't put some type of a bait in their cars prophylactically. Maybe they do.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I I I had a mouse build a nest in my car once. And not inside the car, but in the engine. And I don't know where it went, but when I was getting some kind of upkeep and they found that there had been a mouse thing in there. But all the other years of my life, I've never had that, and I've parked in the same garage for the last twelve years. So, like, once there was a mouse, and then a bunch of other times there weren't. Did it eat wiring? It actually chewed on some stuff, but it didn't actually damage anything mechanically in the car.

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Just don't know whether the wiring that isn't soy based

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: would be a choice. Mean, this was about five years ago.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. I had a three year old Tiguan, a tsunami. Now this may besmirch my sanitary practice, put in the glove box, go to open it, there's nappies. They're all torn up your registration. Numerous times the engine compartment. I mean, this wasn't some jolping sun, it's going out the garage that can close the door once.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Mine's actually a carport, it's not a garage either. Anyway. There's lots of access for rodents to come to my car if they want to, but I also have cats, which is a good old fashioned I have cats. I live in the country, and I don't have any problems with mice.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So just I want to maybe try and wrap this up for the moment. And I think representative Nelson, Richard, you asked a good question about what problem are we You should always be asking that question, right? What problem are you addressing, trying to solve? And I think, yes, we certainly have seen lots over the course of this session, last session, lots of evidence that there is an impact. How do you measure that impact? At what point do you decide something needs to be done? Those might be personal questions. And there's also a human impact. We haven't really talked about that as much or heard as much about that, but we know that that's also a thing to be considered. And then I guess the question is, if you feel there is a problem that needs to be addressed, what might the solution be? If this isn't the solution, maybe folks can think about what do you think would be the solution? So we're gonna leave it at that for now. I did want to just, we have, sorry, here, you, do you mind coming up to the table and just spend three minutes even just talking about the work that you and Representative Nelson and others have

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: done. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: then we'll see some language later. So our miscellaneous bill Not to do with with redemptorize, yep. I need a little of these. We have a miscellaneous bill that has one section in that we heard about yesterday. It's the non sewage solid waste that the agency asked us to change some some of the language on. There's a section on pricing, unit pricing. We're gonna take testimony this afternoon on. There's another section on training. And then and that's it. Just the three things. We haven't really talked very much about any of it. There's some language that's come out of the work that the CAFO study group has done that Richard has been a big part of. We wanna make sure that that language gets into a bill somewhere before crossover. Jared, you got three minutes.

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: Thank you. So for the record, Jared Carpenter, Lake Champlain Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we've been involved in folks remember the KFO bill from last year of switching large dairy and medium dairy that qualifies over to a KFO program and out of the large farm, permitting and medium farm permitting. As part of that bill, there was, a stakeholder group was put together consisting of farmers, the petitioners, the environmental advocates, the Lake Champlain Committee, Conservation Law Foundation, and Natural Resources Council to get together and work on implementation and the timeline about how that would all happen. Our last meeting was last Friday morning, and in the process right now, the consultant that was hired by ANR to moderate and do all the discussions is putting together a final report. One of the things that came out of that oh, let me just say, you know, they're very productive conversations. We work through a lot of the issues. There's a lot of give and take on both sides. And I think I think, representative Nelson, we that we addressed the concerns. But one of the things that will be going as part of this was an interest on part of all the parties, well, I don't know about the agencies, we don't talk, the advocates and the farmers, to continue this stakeholder group going forward. So as the process unfolds and as the timeline of when the permit comes out and who needs to get it and the dual inspections and all of that, this group can get together, and talk it through and make course corrections if needed. So we've been working on language, that would essentially, extend what was in the bill last year, in terms of farmers would participate, some technical service providers, some folks from the advocates, someone from the, conservation districts. We would meet quarterly, ANR would be would administer it, I. E. Reserve the room and set up the Zoom link and things of that nature. The agencies had a seat at the table initially. They can certainly be at the room, but it was discussed, well, wait a second. This is a group to get together to essentially critique the agencies. So it makes more sense for them to be more on the sidelines than in the middle. And so that is essentially one part of the language. The other part of the language is there was an interest. We had heard in the discussions that the inspections from AFM and ANR can sometimes be inconsistent, where people are sort of there's different standards, there's wondering who's doing the training, etcetera. So there was an interest in hiring a third party auditor to come in for a two year time period to do an audit of the training program, put together a training program so ANR and AFM are on the same page, so to speak, under the same training program, getting all of the same services, and that if they wanted, those that the farmers that needed to get the permits, could participate in the training free of cost. So they would know exactly what is being looked for when their farms are being inspected by these two. And so that was will hopefully, bring some consistency to the inspections, which, Richard can testify more than I can. Sometimes they're a little inconsistent, is my understanding. So I'll take a deep breath.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I was the above is everything that we had discussed and with the with the modification that the agencies are invited to be there, but not necessarily participants. Hopefully, they're to ask questions. Yes. And take notes.

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: Definitely should be included, but not necessarily a I don't know if we'll vote on anything, but not a voting member.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: To speak. And

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: then on a third party cable inspector auditor that that was the new part you told me was coming and, you know, and that was we discussed it at length and are you looking to make that statute by putting that here?

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: Recession law. Yeah. I mean, I think I am not. I'm waiting to hear back from DEC, and I'll ping them again on this. I'm not a 100% sure whether they have the authority to go out and hire somebody, so this would give them the authority to do so. If they already have the authority, then you don't need that language. But I wanted to just I think we should make sure that we don't have any hiccups going forward so everything can proceed smoothly.

[Unknown Member]: Go ahead. Appropriations have to weigh in to keep the study

[Rep. Heather Surprenant]: group going forward?

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: I'm sorry?

[Unknown Member]: Does appropriations have to support the

[Rep. Heather Surprenant]: study group going forward?

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: I think, yes, from a per diem, there'll be a per diem. So I think just from a per diem standpoint, is which a good reminder for me to talk to representative Squirrel and Stevens. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if we I was gonna ask the same thing. If there is an appropriation in the bill, then we will have to go to that committee. Right. That could hang things up just because they've got they will they I don't wanna catch them off guard. So if you haven't talked to

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: I haven't. And I I it's not requesting for any any additional money other than your standard quote, unquote per diem, which is usually Exactly. Is de minimis. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Even that is enough to, unfortunately, require the bill

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: go We could have an extra stop. I will I will talk to both of them in the next hopefully, over lunchtime.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: This stakeholder group is important enough to the livestock people, the farmers that I heard mentioned, they're not doing this for their retirement benefits. They're doing this because they feel it's it's that important to leave the farm to do it. And so

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: We think that the continued dialogue is is very important going forward. It's a the interesting irony is that with the first meeting that we had, the advocates and the and the and the farmers, There was an insistence that both agencies were kicked out of the room so we could have a discussion amongst ourselves. The conversations were very productive when the agencies weren't in the room as as can tell.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, it's always encouraging to hear advocates and interest holders who don't always align on issues are able to come together. So it sounds encouraging. If you have language that you could send to our Ledge Council. I've sent it to both of you

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: early this morning if you wanna

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: forward it onto Bradley. Yeah. Okay. And just cc me, and we'll take a a shot at getting that in.

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: That'd great. And I apologize for the for the late hour, but if all this

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: is happening together thought it would go in the senate bill, and they are also working late.

[Jared Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: That has miles to go before it sleeps, so to speak. So I'm not sure what would be the status of that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Yeah. You're very welcome.

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Thank you for the time, mister chair. We are we

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: had scheduled some committee discussion this morning. Think we'll have to push back till after till later today on the baby food bill. So please cast your minds back to testimony we had recently on that. And we won't vote on that today, but I will see if we can get a straw poll to see where people are. We are also gonna hear testimony this afternoon on but, basically, and I'm sorry, we're not gonna hear testimony. We're gonna have discussion on all the other bills. We wanna try and get as good a place as we can before we go on the house floor today, knowing how people feel. And then we'll we'll plan to

[John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: vote things up tomorrow. Vote nothing today?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I don't think so. Although if somebody if we find that what we are in a good position, we could do that. Yeah. I don't wanna completely count that out, but also been prepared to wait until tomorrow. Just one note too, tomorrow we're gonna start at 09:15. We're on the floor at 09:30, but if we're gonna be here at 09:15, that's the one chance that legislature can come in on the baby food bill just to, yeah, for fifteen minutes. Feel we're really close on

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: 07:39.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I almost, you know, as long as Greg could be available to use one of his voice phone

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: phone phone phone votes. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I think we could figure out a year. And, you know, if we put in there that, you know, if suitable. Anyway, let Greg

[Unknown Member]: talk about it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. All right. Well, let's take a break. Please be back at one and we're gonna at 01:00, we've got the agency here.